coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants were born in 1946 and 1953 respectively and live in Velika Gorica.
5.  In the night between 12 and 13 April 1992 the applicants' house in Slavonski Brod was blown up by unknown perpetrators. Several months later the ruins of the house were set on fire, which resulted in its complete destruction.
6.  On 11 November 1994 the applicants brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages. They relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.
7.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.
8.  On 17 July 1996 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.
9.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.
10.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings.
11.  Meanwhile, on 6 and 19 June 2002, respectively, the applicants lodged constitutional complaints under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings and the lack of access to a court. On 17 September 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) gave a single decision accepting their complaints. Relying on the Court's case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of the applicants' constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It awarded them each 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the case in the shortest time possible but no later than a year following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 30 September 2004.
12.  On 1 July 2004 the Zagreb Municipal Court declared the applicant's action inadmissible finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter. The applicants appealed and on 21 December 2004 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.
13.  In the resumed proceedings, on 25 July 2005 the Municipal Court gave judgment dismissing the applicants' claim on the merits. The applicants again appealed and the proceedings are currently pending before the Zagreb County Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Omsk.
5.  On 20 July 2004 the Tsentralniy District Court of Omsk accepted the applicant's action against the Omsk Town Council and ordered that the Council should provide the applicant and his family members with a well-equipped flat, taking into account that the applicant had the right to an additional room. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Omsk Regional Court on 25 August 2004.
6.  On 16 September 2004 enforcement proceedings were instituted.
7.  On 28 December 2004 the Tsentralniy District Court clarified its judgment of 20 July 2004, noting that the Council should buy a flat at the expense of the federal budget.
8.  The judgment remains unenforced because the Federal Treasury did not provide the Council with necessary funds.
4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Kocaeli.
5.  On 16 October 1992 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of his membership of the Dev-Sol (the Revolutionary Left) and was taken into police custody.
6.  On 26 October 1992 he was brought before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who ordered the applicant's detention on remand.
7.  On 8 January 1993 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and sixteen other co-accused, charging them, inter alia, with membership of an illegal armed organisation and for participating in activities that undermined the constitutional order of the State. The public prosecutor sought the death penalty for the applicant pursuant to Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
8.  In 2004 the State Security Courts were abolished following a constitutional amendment and the applicant's case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.
9.  On 2 May 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
10.  The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. The case was remitted before the Istanbul Assize Court where it is still pending.
6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the Rostov Region.
7.  On 28 July 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.
8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.
9.  On 13 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 3,000 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.
10.  On 26 December 2006 the Town Court's judgment became final.
11.  On 29 December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the amount of EUR 3,000 had been credited into his bank account.
6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the Rostov Region.
7.  On 9 June 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.
8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.
9.  On 13 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 1,500 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.
10.  On 26 December 2006 the Town Court's judgment became final.
11.  On 29 December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the amount of EUR 1,500 had been credited into his bank account.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Neryungri in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.
5.  On 11 July 2003 the Neryungri Town Court accepted the applicant's claim against the Government of the Russian Federation and awarded her 72,967 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 2,110 euros) in compensation for a special-purpose settlement order by the terms of which the Government was to provide her with a car in exchange for payments extracted from the applicant's salary and benefits related to her employment in the Far-Northern Region of Russia. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 25 August 2003 by the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.
6.  The Neryungri Town Court issued the applicant with a writ of execution which she submitted to the Ministry of Finance in November 2003.
7.  At the time the application was lodged with the Court the judgment of 11 July 2003, as upheld on appeal on 25 August 2003, remained unenforced.
8.  According to the Government, on 31 March 2006 the Federal Treasury of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic successfully initiated a supervisory review of the judgment of 11 July 2003.
9.  On 24 August 2006 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic reviewed the judgment of 11 July 2003, as upheld on appeal on 25 August 2003, and ordered that the Ministry of Finance should pay the applicant RUR 33,201.49 (approximately 980 euros) .
10.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted in respect of the judgment of 24 August 2006. The applicant did not submit any information concerning the outcome of those proceedings.
6.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in the Rostov Region.
7.  On 6 July 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.
8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.
9.  On 13 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 3,000 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.
In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.
10.  On 26 December 2006 the Town Court's judgment became final.
11.  On 29 December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the amount of EUR 3,000 had been credited into his bank account.
4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Zagreb.
5.  On 8 August 1992 the applicant's house in Samobor, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
6.  On 23 November 1992 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Samobor Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Samoboru) seeking damages. He relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.
7.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.
8.  On 2 February 1999 the Samobor Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.
9.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.
10.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 8 January 2004 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings.
11.  On 4 March 2004 the court declared the applicant's action inadmissible finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter. The applicant appealed to the Velika Gorica County Court (Županijski sud u Velikoj Gorici). It would appear that the proceedings are currently pending before that court.
12.  Meanwhile, on 22 April 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings and the lack of access to a court. On 24 February 2005 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicant's complaint. Relying on the Court's case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of the applicant's constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It ordered the County Court to give a decision in the applicant's case within a year and awarded him compensation in the amount of 7,800 Croatian kunas (HRK).
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Zagreb.
5.  On 30 May 1992 the applicant's house in Velika Črešnjevica, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
6.  On 22 February 1995 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages. He relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.
7.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.
8.  On 15 March 1996 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.
9.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.
10.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings.
11.  Meanwhile, on 17 April 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of proceedings under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. On 24 March 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicant's complaint. Relying on the Court's case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of the applicant's constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the applicant's case within a year and awarded him compensation in the amount of 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK).
12.  On 12 May 2004 the Zagreb Municipal Court declared the applicant's action inadmissible finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter.
13.  The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu). It would appear that the proceedings are currently pending before that court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Istanbul. He was a research assistant in the Institute for Positive Sciences at the Istanbul Technical University (hereinafter: “the University”) at the time of the events.
5.  On 30 June 1996 the University decided not to renew the applicant's contract as a research assistant. The applicant was notified of this decision on 17 July 1996.
6.  On 30 July 1996 the applicant filed an action with the İstanbul Administrative Court and requested the annulment, and suspension of the execution, of the University's abovementioned decision.
7.  The applicant's request for suspension was dismissed by the first instance court on 24 January 1997.
8.  On 31 October 1997 the Istanbul Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's case.
9.  On 20 January 1998 the applicant appealed.
10.  On 1 June 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the first instance court.
11.  On 12 September 2000 the applicant requested the Supreme Administrative Court to rectify its decision.
12.  On 6 December 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's request. This decision was served on the applicant on 16 January 2002.
4.  The applicants were born in 1944 and 1932 respectively and live in Bjelovar.
5.  On 1 March 1992 the applicants’ house in Bjelovar was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
6.  On 1 March 1994 the applicants brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages. They relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.
7.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.
8.  On 7 June 1999 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.
9.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.
10.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 14 January 2004 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings.
11.  Meanwhile, on 21 May 2002 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of proceedings under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. On 7 July 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicants’ complaint. Relying on the Court’s case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of their constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the applicants’ case within a year and awarded them compensation in the amount of 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK) each.
12.  On 11 March 2004 the Zagreb Municipal Court declared the applicants’ action inadmissible finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter.
13.  The applicants appealed to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu). It would appear that the proceedings are currently pending before that court.
6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the Rostov Region.
7.  On 5 August 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.
8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.
9.  On 13 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 3,000 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.
10.  On 26 December 2006 the Town Court's judgment became final.
11.  On 29 December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the amount of EUR 3,000 had been credited into his bank account.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Adana.
5.  Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant by the public prosecutor at the Adana State Security Court under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The applicant was accused of membership of an illegal organisation.
6.  In the course of the criminal proceedings the applicant was remanded in custody. On 20 March 2001 Adana State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
7.  On 28 August 2001 the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion to the latter. This opinion was not communicated to the applicant.
8.  On 20 November 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
9.  In March 2006 the applicant was released from prison following the reduction of his sentence in accordance with the provisions of the new Criminal Code.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Orenburg.
5.  In 2000 the applicant sued the communication department of the Ural Military Circuit of the Ministry of Defence for social benefits provided to former military officers by law.
6.  On 6 December 2000 the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg accepted the applicant's action in part and awarded him 3,135.20 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 130 euros). The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
7.  On 19 December 2000 the Kirovskiy District Court issued the applicant with a writ of execution. It also sent a copy of the writ to the defendant.
8.  In February 2001 the writ of execution was returned to the District Court because the defendant did not have funds to enforce the judgment.
9.  On 4 April 2001 a bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings.
10.  On 19 November 2003 the applicant was paid RUR 3,135.20.
4.  The applicants were born in 1925 and lived in Voronezh.
5.  At the relevant time the applicants were in receipt of a pension from the pension authority (“the authority”, Комитет по социальной защите населения администрации Железнодорожного района г. Воронежа).
6.  It appears that in 1998 and 1999 there were delays in payment of their pension and in 2000 the applicants brought a court claim against the authority in this connection.
7.  By judgments of 17 and 20 July 2000 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of the town of Voronezh granted the applicants' claims and ordered the authority to pay the first applicant 1,109.36 roubles (RUR – approximately 42 euros) in damages. The second applicant was granted a compensation of RUR 1,355.46 (approximately 53 euros).
8.  The judgments came into force on 27 and 31 July 2000 respectively.
9.  On an unspecified date the District Court issued the writs of enforcement and directed them to the bailiffs for enforcement.
10.  According to the applicants, in April 2001 the bailiffs returned the writs without enforcement with reference to the lack of funds.
11.  It appears that the court award in respect of the first applicant was enforced on 7 December 2005. As regards the second applicant, the award was received on 9 December 2005.
12.  According to the Government, the awards in respect of both applicants were enforced in full on 6 December 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and resides in the town of Dniprodzerzhynsk, the Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.
5.  On 12 October 2000 the Zavodskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk awarded the applicant 1,804.61[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in salary arrears and in compensation for moral damage against the Dniprodzerzhynskmiskelektrotrans Municipal Company (Комунальне експлуатаційне підприємство «Дніпродзержинськміськелектротранс»).
6.  The Government submitted that in 2001 the applicant received UAH 895, the rest of the debt amount remaining unpaid.
7.  The applicant contested this submission and stated that the above amount had been received by him in enforcement of another judgment in his favour adopted on 18 March 1999 against the same debtor.
8.  On 26 June 2002 the Bailiffs' Service returned the writ of enforcement to the applicant. In particular, it was stated that the applicant had been proposed to take some property items (equipment, an administrative building etc.) from the debtor in enforcement of the judgment in his favour. As the applicant failed to inform the Bailiffs' Service whether he wanted to take any property, the Bailiffs' Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings.
9.  On 17 June 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Region Commercial Court declared the debtor enterprise bankrupt.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in the town of Berdyansk, Zaporizhzhia region.
5.  On 30 May 2000 the Berdyansk Court awarded the applicant UAH 1,423.39 against the JSC “Yuzhgidromash”, a company in which the State owned 25% of the shares (hereinafter “YGM”) in compensation for salary arrears.
6.  On 7 July 2000 the Berdiansk Bailiffs' Service (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) initiated enforcement proceedings in the case.
7.  On 26 June 2001 the enforcement proceedings were suspended in view of Order no. 33/5 of 1 June 2001 of the Minister of Justice and the moratorium on the forced sale of the YGM's property.
8.  On 24 July 2001 the Berdiansk State Tax Administration informed the applicant that all YGM's property was under tax lien.
9.  On 1 April 2002 the Zaporizhzhia Regional Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the YGM.
10.  On 12 April 2002 the enforcement proceedings were suspended in view of the above bankruptcy proceedings.
11.  On 22 March 2004 the enforcement proceedings were resumed and on 2 April 2004 the Bailiffs attached the debtor's property.
12.  During June 2004 – January 2005 the enforcement proceedings were suspended as the debtor challenged the Bailiffs' acts before the Berdyansk Court.
13.  On 10 January 2005 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.
14.  On 16 June 2005 the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kyiv prohibited the forced sale of the YGM property.
15.  The judgment of 30 May 2000 given in the applicant's favour remains unenforced.
Other proceedings
16.  On 12 February 2002 the Berdyansk Court ordered the applicant to pay UAH 443.03 to the communal property enterprise in compensation for unpaid commodity charges. This judgment was upheld by the Zaporizhzhia Regional Court of Appeal. The applicant did not appeal in cassation.